Brexit was a vote for national control over immigration – Labour must fully embrace it

The Brexit vote was about restoring national democratic control over domestic policy, with the most politically salient being control over immigration, writes Richard Johnson (Lancaster University). Labour’s recent embrace of Brexit enabled the party to win back voters in the 2017 General Election. In order to truly ‘take back control’ the party must follow its leader and also reject the Single Market, he concludes.

For many years, Labour Party critics of the European Union have highlighted the problems of removing important fields of national policy away from nationally elected governments and transferring them to supranational institutions with which ordinary citizens have little connection. As recognised by Denis Healey in 1950, Clement Attlee in 1962, and Tony Benn in 1975, European Union membership entails removing national decision-making powers away from the institution where most people in Britain think the laws affecting them ought to be made (the UK Parliament). This transfer of power creates a dilemma for democratic decision-making: national publics expect their national parliaments to make policy choices even though their MPs have given up the ability to shape such policies directly.

In recent years, the most politically consequential power which has been transferred to the European Union has been the ability of the British government to set the number of people who migrate to the United Kingdom. So long as Britain remained in the EU, the British government was powerless to regulate substantially immigration from twenty-seven other countries, some of which have extremely different labour markets to that of the United Kingdom. During David Cameron’s attempted negotiations with the European Union in advance of the 2016 referendum, EU leaders made it clear that immigration policy within the EU was not up for negotiation. Free movement of labour was an inviolable part of membership of the EU, no matter what democratic electorates felt about the policy.

For years, large majorities of the British public have felt that immigration levels have been too high. At the time of the referendum, 77% of the British public wanted to see levels of immigration brought down, while only 4% of the public wanted to see immigration increase. Yet, British governments were seriously impaired from reducing numbers. Election after election, pledges were made by both parties (recognising the desire among the public to reduce immigration) but broken (due to the absence of the levers of power to achieve the desired outcome). By returning power over this key policy area back to the British Parliament, Brexit has opened up the political space for the main parties to appeal to voters who have felt ignored by the political class.

Figure 1. Annual migration to the UK from the EU, 1991-2017 (ONS data)

In the 2017 general election, Labour embraced Brexit in its manifesto. Senior Labour figures accepted the need to end EU free movement, a policy which had been at the core of voters’ distrust of the Labour Party. Shortly after the referendum result, Corbyn wrote a piece in the Guardian arguing, ‘If freedom of movement means the freedom to exploit cheap labour in a race to the bottom, it will never be accepted in any future relationship with Europe’.

With both parties in agreement on Brexit and immigration, the 2017 general election focused on austerity, education, and the costs of an ageing society. Together, Labour and the Conservatives received a combined 82.3% of the vote, higher than any election since 1970. The Liberal Democrats, in contrast, promised a second referendum in an attempt to keep Britain in the European Union. They received their lowest vote share since the 1959 general election.

Labour’s position on Brexit enabled the party to focus on key economic concerns to win back voters who had defected to the Conservatives and UKIP. Of the 28 gains Labour made off the Conservatives in 2017, a majority (17) were in seats which are estimated to have voted Leave. Labour managed to win seat such as Peterborough, Crewe and Nantwich, Stockton South, Lincoln, and the Vale of Clwyd, all areas where as many as 3 in 5 voters backed Leave. Indeed, Brexit appears to have been the release of a public pressure valve on immigration. The 2017 general election was the first since 2001 (i.e. the first since EU enlargement) in which immigration did not dominate among voters’ most important issues. In the 2010 and 2015 general elections respectively, 53% and 52% of voters cited immigration as one of the top three issues facing the country. In June 2017, only 34% did. It is no coincidence that in June 2017 UKIP had their worst election night since 2001, while Labour secured its highest vote share since 2001.

Voices in the Labour Party have argued that Labour must commit to remaining in the Single Market. This would be politically catastrophic for Labour, particularly because Single Market membership would require continued free movement and the continued transfer of large areas of national policy to supranational entities. Labour’s Shadow Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner was correct to say that if Britain remained in the Single Market, ‘we would in effect become a vassal state: obliged to pay into the union’s budget while having even less sovereignty than we do now’.

In 2016, the British people decisively, with a majority of over 1 million and in the largest turnout in a British election in a generation, voted to end a forty-year political union which Britain shared with, initially, eight and, now, twenty-seven other countries. The ‘take back control’ message was an echo of the critiques made about the Common Market made by Labour politicians for decades. At its core, Brexit was about restoring national democratic control and accountability over major fields of domestic policy, with the most politically salient being control over immigration.

This article also appeared on Briefings for Brexit and it gives the views of the author, and not the position of LSE Brexit, nor of the London School of Economics.

Can democratic consensus really be described as “mob rule”. Isn’t the alternative government by unrepresentative elites, who, as we have seen, are often furthering their own interest rather than those of the voters? And surely “sophistry” would indicate an argument long on rhetoric and short on verifiable information, which doesn’t seem to be the case with this article which is well supported by research.

Can there be ‘Democracy’ where ‘votes’ are gained through lies, and Party-Political unanimity is sufficient to wipe-away ‘law’? [The actual ‘Act’ that that gave us the referendum.]
The ‘consensus’ you describe came from 37% of the electorate, and concerned a vote for a many-splendored thing. The meaning of which was only revealed after the polls closed. [‘revealed’ in its widest ever sense.]
‘The alternative’, you describe is exactly what has given rise to our current state of affairs. Just because a Marxist sees an advantage in the ‘outcome’ does not make the mechanism behind it any the less ‘elitist’.
‘Sophistry’, as I know it – is the arguing of a point upon an entirely spurious premise. Again, simply because one seeks advantage from it, does not lend it legitimacy.

It is a folly – as far as I see it, to work on the assumption that ‘Leave’ led to ‘Brexit’. The whole thing makes far more sense when one considers that it was to be ‘Brexit’ all along.
This, and nothing else, explains why the process of Bill to Act; which resulted in an ‘advisory’ referendum, that was so easily altered to form a basis of Government (Tory) policy. [Albeit that that policy has now broad cross-Party support.]

1. You claim 17 million people were hoodwinked into voting for brexit
2. then you claim that a majority vote in a country that does not have mandatory voting is somehow illegitimate because some people did not exercise their right to vote
3. Then you complain about sophistry

Thanks for the morning chuckle, it beats the hell out of Garfield.

Tom Austin
February 23, 2018 at 8:44 am

1. No, I do not.

2. “The vote” Such a thing is everything or pretty much nothing at all:
– It is everything, when it is (as it is) the sole route through which we common folk may impact upon the way we are Governed:By way of elections ONLY.
– It is next to nothing, when it is comparable with ‘electing’ SuBo to stardom, or picking the dancers to go through to the next round of ‘Strictly’.

When the ballot box is used (very occasionally) to offer-up an opinion on a particular topic; we voters need to keep our eye on the ball. Lest we become mere cyphers for the machinations of “here today, and gone tomorrow Party Politicians.”
This last point is as bad when we see advantage in it as when we do not, because once you fall into their trap, you find you have no way out – just as you, Mr. Ash, claim at the moment, that I have no way out.
– Caveat emptor!

We can accept to be ruled by ‘the law’ and to be Governed through Politics, as has been the case for centuries. Or we can accept to be ruled by the whim & fancy of Politicians. On this point we certainly differ.

You just don’t get it do you Austin? The entire EU, UN Plan for 2030, Mass Immigration to destroy our culture, Globalisation and the formation of the NWO has been rumbled by millions of the electorate. All the evidence is staring you in the face. No matter how many layers of obfuscation & irrelevancies are placed on top – customs union, trading partnerships, tariffs, fishing rights, ECHR, EU Superstate etc., the underlying evil behind it all is clearly seen by those with open minds. The rest of you are still stumbling around in a fog of deceit.

On the contrary: Brexit is the vital Stage One in bringing the this whole repulsive plan to it’s knees. Stage Two was the election of Donald Trump. The House of Cards is cracking. I cannot wait to dance on it’s grave.

Hugh Riddle
February 22, 2018 at 1:11 pm

So, Geoff G, your urges are destructive: to see our neighbour countries no longer working together. Contrasted with that, the beliefs of the author of the article seem positively benign.

In my experience, it’s mostly conspiracy theorists who say ‘You just don’t get it’. I can’t remember any time when they got it right, although those I knew often failed to spot actual conspiracies..

GeoffG
February 22, 2018 at 3:38 pm

@Hugh Riddle: Destructive? Quite the opposite. The NWO Plan I outline is the one of DESTRUCTION – as you will eventually see if it is not stopped very soon. It is utterly amazing that so many people are unable to extrapolate forward to see where we are being taken. You must be very insulated from the events unfolding. .

Other research suggests that, with some outliers, the districts with the highest level of Leave voters were also areas with low levels of migrant population. Conversely, districts with the lowest levels of Leave voters also contained high levels of immigration.

People voted Leave for all manner of reasons, although a significant proportion may have been triggered by a desire for greater control (ie pseudo sovereignty) or immigration concerns.

As for the suggestion that British governments have been substantially powerless to regulate immigration, perhaps we should take account of the following:

* For decades, non EU migration has been higher than EU migration, and EU migrants have consistently contributed to the UK economy. What is preventing the UK from more effective control of non EU migration?
* The UK is an ageing society where the need for migrant labour will increase, not diminish. The need will not disappear, given a projected reduction of 5% in the working age population by 2035. And it’s clear that potential future trading partners, eg India, will also seek freedom of movement for their people.
* A report from the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE states:“the areas of the UK with large increases in EU immigration did not suffer greater falls in the jobs and pay of UK-born workers. The big falls in wages after 2008 are due to the global financial crisis and a weak economic recovery, not to immigration”. * Jonathan Wadsworth of the LSE: “The bottom line, which may surprise many people, is that EU immigration has not harmed the pay, jobs or public services enjoyed by Britons. In fact, for the most part it has likely made us better off. So, far from EU immigration being a “necessary evil” that we pay to get access to the greater trade and foreign investment generated by the EU single market, immigration is at worse neutral, and at best, another economic benefit.”
* The UK has relatively high numbers of migrants in comparison to other EU countries, but has neither the highest in absolute terms, nor the biggest share of migrants in the population. The UK immigration “problem” is somewhat overstated, particularly from people who live in those areas where there are few or no migrants.
* When the EU expanded in 2004, the UK was one of three countries which opened its borders immediately to workers from the new member states. This was a matter of choice, not compulsion. There has been an increase in immigrant population of 2 million since 2004.
* David Wood, ex DG of Immigration Enforcement addressing the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in 2017, stated that there may be over one million illegal immigrants in the UK. Lack of effective enforcement may well be an issue.
* The OECD has estimated that freedom of movement has lowered the unemployment rate across Europe by 6%.

In former times, most people put the economy first, in the interests of prosperity and funding effective public services, and for the common good. Some of us still do. We should all accept the result of the referendum, although many of us believe it will diminish our nation. But there is no compulsion to accept the worst form of Brexit, when continued access to the single market is available through the EEA, the terms of membership of which have been consistently misrepresented in the media, partially for want of understanding and partially to mislead the public.

Your position here is basically that people are ill informed on immigration, instead of trying to educate them, we go with ideological campaigns that have co opted their opinions to get their low regulation fantasy in place, at the expense of the country, its international standing and its people.
Also the referendum was not an election, you may want to reword that bit.

Note – Since the LSE Brexit blogs seems to allow the re-use of user names already in use by others responding to others blog posts on the site, I have amended my user name to avoid any confusion. (the potential pitfalls of allowing this are obvious).

Political pragmatism and political commitment are two different things. A majority voted for some form of Brexit. The hard Brexit lobby in the Parliamentary Tory party as indicated by the signatories to the recent letter to Theresa May amount to just over 60 MPs. The Labour Party has a much smaller hard Brexit lobby. Both parties are held to ransom by small minority factions of Brexit radicals (both in parliament and amongst their voters) who are breaking the usual political convention and are willing to sacrifice party loyalty and damage or destroy their own party to get their own way on this issue by what is effectively blackmail. Surprisingly this is a very effective way for the tail to wag the dog where the big political parties are concerned. They are terrified of losing even a small proportion of their support so are under severe pressure to cave in. The danger is we end up with something that almost nobody wants.

The truth is that on both sides of the argument many people voted for many different reasons. Not all leave voters voted on the basis of concern about immigration. Not all leave voters wanted or expected to crash out of the single market. The problem is that it is just a matter of speculation exactly what people did vote for and in what proportions but I am not convinced that all but that tiny 2% majority were utterly unanimous in their aspirations and reasons for voting. Even if they were, some people’s perceptions of immigration (egged on by the press and wall to wall coverage of UKIP in the media) and the reality of immigration and its relation to the causes of unemployment, NHS cuts, housing cuts etc are two entirely different things.

[…] people have articulated the opposing case to this – a particularly incisive recent example is the post from Richard Johnson on the LSE Brexit Blog, where Johnson argues that the Labour Leave vote was a vote to reduce […]

[…] majority of the seats that Labour won from the Conservatives were in constituencies that are estimated to have voted Leave. For those of us who have long believed that “ever closer union” with the European […]

[…] majority of the seats that Labour won from the Conservatives were in constituencies that are estimated to have voted Leave. For those of us who have long believed that “ever closer union” with the European […]

[…] majority of the seats that Labour won from the Conservatives were in constituencies that are estimated to have voted Leave. For those of us who have long believed that “ever closer union” with the European […]

There is a lot of sophistry in this piece, and it is full of non-sequiturs.
For example, “At the time of the referendum, 77% of the British public wanted to see levels of immigration brought down”, but so what? At the time of the referendum only 37% of people eligible to vote actually voted to leave the EU. People may say that they want to see immigration brought down, but it does not follow that this is necessarily their highest priority, or that they are prepared to see the economy and inward investment take a large hit to make that happen. Opinion polls are notoriously unreliable when polling this sort of thing. If you asked people if they want world class public services, they will answer yes, if you ask them if they want a big cut to taxes they will also answer yes. Public policy should not rest on answers to questions that are give with no other context taken into account.
“have highlighted the problems of removing important fields of national policy away from nationally elected governments and transferring them to supranational institutions with which ordinary citizens have little connection.”
I don’t understand what these “problems” are supposed to be. This pre-supposes that citizens have some connection to national institutions such as Whitehall, whereas my experience is that MPs believe what they believe, and generally ignore constituents who express views that are contrary to the MP’s views. And it presupposes that MPs have some connection to their constituents that MEP’s lack, and I see no real evidence to support that. Indeed, in terms of consumer rights, worker’s rights, environmental protections, the EU seems to have introduced policies that benefit UK citizens far more than policies introduced by UK domestic governments.
“In 2016, the British people decisively, with a majority of over 1 million and in the largest turnout in a British election in a generation, voted to end a forty-year political union”
Anyone who argues that a 52% to 48% vote is “decisive” needs to brush up on their mathematics. If anything it emphasises that the UK is equally divided on the issue. Couple that with the fact that a significant proportion of those who voted to leave the EU were not voting to leave the economic institutions of the EEA, and what we actually have is a majority who are against ending freedom of movement if it means also ending membership of the single market.
I find it quite bizarre that an academic would write a piece that doesn’t even attempt to show balance.

We use cookies on this site to understand how you use our content, and to give you the best browsing experience. To accept cookies, click continue. To find out more about cookies and change your preferences, visit our Cookie Policy.